Moron Motorists #3

[AKO]

Cheers Padrone. Not much you can do about them types of people. He was completely ignorant of the rules and probably still thinks he's in the right. I did suggest he go to the Queensland Roads web site and brush up his rules.

[jules21]

NHP Electrical Engineering Products driver seems to be having Summernats flashbacks

[find_bruce]

Fatal collision in Tasmania today -

A 27-year-old West Launceston woman was killed in the crash on the Midland Highway, 15 kilometres south of Oatlands, about 6:15pm.
Mr Ellis had surgery for a broken leg last night and remains in a stable condition.
His wife Anita Smith, who was a passenger, was treated for a broken collarbone and is expected to be discharged later today.
...
In a statement police say the 57-year-old's car was travelling south and crossed over double white lines onto the wrong side of the road.
The car collided head-on with the woman's car, which was using a northbound overtaking lane.
The force of the impact caused Mr Ellis's car to hit a third vehicle travelling north.
The 23-year-old driver from Rocherlea and his female passenger were not injured.

Sadly nothing unuusal about those facts, but it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

[jasonc]

it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

oooh - resignation of post you reckon?

[il padrone]

In a statement police say the 57-year-old's car was travelling south and crossed over double white lines onto the wrong side of the road.

Hey! What's so unusual about that. It's legally OK, isn't it? Seeing as how all the drivers do it

[human909]

Sadly nothing unuusal about those facts, but it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Australia has a decent record of ensuring everybody no matter who they are faces the full brunt of the law.

Unfortunately if there is no drugs, alcohol or speeding involved then the full brunt of the law is often a mere slap.

[hannos]

Sadly nothing unuusal about those facts, but it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Australia has a decent record of ensuring everybody no matter who they are faces the full brunt of the law.

Unfortunately if there is no drugs, alcohol or speeding involved then the full brunt of the law is often a mere slap.

Who's that lawyer in South Australia again... ?

[zero]

Sadly nothing unuusal about those facts, but it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Negligent driving occasioning death. If I was a betting man, I'd have my life savings on fine + licence DQ, non custodial sentence if found guilty.

[London Boy]

Sadly nothing unuusal about those facts, but it will be interesting to see what if any charges will be laid, seeing as how Mr Ellis is the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Negligent driving occasioning death. If I was a betting man, I'd have my life savings on fine + licence DQ, non custodial sentence if found guilty.

Generally speaking, I'd hope you are wrong and it is causing death by dangerous driving, maximum penalty 21 years.

Unfortunately I think it might be negligent driving, as you say.

[find_bruce]

As with all states, there are a range of possible charges, with similar names but very different penalities.

Causing death by dangerous driving - under 167A of the criminal code, as London Boy says the maximum penalty is 21 years imprisonment, yet the similarly worded offence under the traffic act s32(1) it is a maximum 2 years for a first offence.

Negligent driving causing death is solely under the traffic act s32(2A) it is 1 year for a first offence.

Being charged with any of these offences would mean the end of his career as DPP - the role has such significant discretion in the prosecution of crimes the holder must be beyond reproach. The major issue for a conviction would be whether he loses his pension.

The soft alternative would be a fine for driving without due care and attention - Road Rules 2009 (Tas) (Reg 367)

[il padrone]

Soft option?

Pahh!! A lady is dead !!

[find_bruce]

Soft option?

Pahh!! A lady is dead !!

You know that, I know that, I just hope whoever makes the decision remembers that

[jules21]

no biggie

[KonaCommuter]

My wife now has a dashcam and is on the prowl for Moron Motorists. This is her first outing and she scores a quality scalp

[Kenzo]

Probably French.... and used to the left turn on red permitted option.

[Rhubarb]

A relatively minor one but still worth asking the question. I guess its an accumulated frustration of many motorists continually blocking the bike lanes unnecessarily.

[Rhubarb]

My wife now has a dashcam and is on the prowl for Moron Motorists. This is her first outing and she scores a quality scalp

I thought that may have been the bonnet of your new velomobile ...

[wurtulla wabbit]

Seen a few over the last few days that's scared me a bit.....

They seem to drift well into the hard shoulder.
So much so that if there was a cyclist, they'd be pretty dead ! not just once neither, they drifted in and out a few times over a Klm or so that I was following, makes me a bit wary and paranoid now !
Might speed me up a bit !

[Mulger bill]

Got right hooked by a black Holden bully bus today. I had the holeshot in the RH turn lane at the lights and intended going straight into the service rd. Halfway around I'm ready to drift over to the left when this goon turns from the straight lane and roars past on my left

I said a few words

[il padrone]

A relatively minor one but still worth asking the question. I guess its an accumulated frustration of many motorists continually blocking the bike lanes unnecessarily.

I'm trying to work out where the cars came from at the start. He's on the roadside, blocking the bike lane with a clear road ahead.... then as you come up and he pulls out, all of a sudden there are 3 or 4 cars in front of him ?????

Yes, that driver needs some re-education by his employer.

[Lukeyboy]

Sylvan Road can go eat a bag of <language> with its crappy bike lanes and side parking. If someone in a side street isn't blocking the lane with the front of their car its some L plater doing a reverse parking job during peak hour.

I'm trying to work out where the cars came from at the start. He's on the roadside, blocking the bike lane with a clear road ahead.... then as you come up and he pulls out, all of a sudden there are 3 or 4 cars in front of him ?????

Leading to the intersection are 3 lanes. The left lane is the bike lane, in the middle is a thru/left turn lane and on the right is a right turn only lane. Hence the blind spot of the cars infront of the truck and the empty lane to the right.

[fatdudeonabike]

My wife now has a dashcam and is on the prowl for Moron Motorists. This is her first outing and she scores a quality scalp

I very much appreciated the driver in front and the head shaking

[VRE]

A relatively minor one but still worth asking the question. I guess its an accumulated frustration of many motorists continually blocking the bike lanes unnecessarily.

I'm trying to work out where the cars came from at the start. He's on the roadside, blocking the bike lane with a clear road ahead.... then as you come up and he pulls out, all of a sudden there are 3 or 4 cars in front of him ?????

Yes, that driver needs some re-education by his employer.

Agreed, he does.

I disagree with the subtitle in the video about "forcing cyclists to veer out onto a busy road in front of unsuspecting motorists". This is a lane change (a legal one) from the bike lane to the lane next to it, and regardless of whether the obstruction in the bike lane is legal or not, by law the cyclist is required to (a) give way to any traffic in the destination lane and (b) indicate the right lane change. If it's not immediately safe to do this lane change, then you slow down (or stop) in the bike lane, and wait until it is. I hardly ever see cyclists follow these rules, even though they apply equally to cyclists and motorists.

[wellington_street]

I disagree with the subtitle in the video about "forcing cyclists to veer out onto a busy road in front of unsuspecting motorists". This is a lane change (a legal one) from the bike lane to the lane next to it, and regardless of whether the obstruction in the bike lane is legal or not, by law the cyclist is required to (a) give way to any traffic in the destination lane and (b) indicate the right lane change. If it's not immediately safe to do this lane change, then you slow down (or stop) in the bike lane, and wait until it is. I hardly ever see cyclists follow these rules, even though they apply equally to cyclists and motorists.

+1

With car noses - it often happens because of sight lines, i.e. you can't see traffic from behind the give way line so you need to inch forward into the bike lane and traffic lane. I don't know what sight distance is like at that junction but it happens a lot when I'm driving in all sorts of place, especially with a bonnet.

My MM yesterday was a tradie stationwagon who decided not to park in the works zone (i.e. 2 parallel bays reserved for the construction site he was visiting) or a standard parking bay 2 spots down, no he decided to drive up on to the footpath and park there. Not just park there but park diagonally so he was blocking the whole <language> footpath which is a good 4 metres wide. You, sir, are an A-grade moron. This is not some pissy little side street where you can go round, this is a heavily trafficked one-way street in West Perth.

[zero]

A relatively minor one but still worth asking the question. I guess its an accumulated frustration of many motorists continually blocking the bike lanes unnecessarily.

The entire clip showcases the externalities of allowing people to block public thoroughfares by abandoning their cars in them.